bInterior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) has accused the Union of not doing enough to protect democracy and the rule of law from sabotage. “In these times, state political responsibility is needed instead of fundamental opposition,” Faeser told dpa on Friday. Especially when it comes to protecting democracy, the principle should apply to all democrats: “First the country, then the party.”
For the time being, the Union sees no need to provide the Federal Constitutional Court with greater protection from influence in response to the rise of extreme parties and has ended corresponding discussions with the traffic light government. “The Union parliamentary group currently sees no compelling need to change the regulations on the Federal Constitutional Court in the Basic Law,” said Union parliamentary group vice-president Andrea Lindholz (CSU) to the “Rheinische Post”. In discussions with representatives of the traffic light factions, it became clear that restructuring the legal basis of the Federal Constitutional Court would not only have advantages. Such changes to the Basic Law would have to be very carefully considered.
The traffic light coalition has considered enshrining details on the election and term of office of constitutional judges not just in a simple law, but in the Basic Law. These could then no longer be changed with a simple majority, but only with a two-thirds majority. This could, for example, prevent judges from being removed from office relatively easily in the event of a change of government.
“Our constitutional state must not be allowed to be sabotaged from within,” said Faeser. “When authoritarian forces attack democracy, the judiciary is often their first target,” warned the minister. This could be observed in neighboring European countries. It is therefore necessary to ensure the independence of the Federal Constitutional Court more strongly.” To this end, it would be advisable to include central regulations on organization and procedures in the Basic Law.
Federal Justice Minister Marco Buschmann told the dpa on Thursday evening that he regretted that the Union was no longer available for discussions on the matter. “Especially in the year of the 75th birthday of the Basic Law, it would have been an important sign of strengthening the defenses of our democracy and the rule of law,” said the FDP politician. Further discussions remained possible at a later date.
Green politician Konstantin von Notz called the Union's decision negligent and criticized CDU leader Friedrich Merz. “While millions of people in our country are taking to the streets for our constitutional state and its defensiveness and are addressing clear expectations in the direction of politics, Friedrich Merz is still not able to jump over his shadow so that we as democrats can stand together and “We can work across factions to better protect our highest constitutional bodies,” he said. The latest positioning should not be the end of the cross-party discussions. “Not increasing the level of protection for the Federal Constitutional Court in an extremely tense situation in terms of security policy is either politically naive or extremely negligent.”
SPD parliamentary group deputy Dirk Wiese also attacked the Union for the decision. “In one of the most difficult times for our democracy in decades, the Union is in no way living up to its role as a responsible opposition,” Wiese told the “Rheinische Post”. He hopes that the Union will still live up to its political responsibility.